FILM ANNOTATION FOR "A CRUDE AWAKENING: THE OIL CRASH"
1. Title, director and release year? A Crude Awakening, Basil Gelpke and Ray McCormack, 2006 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument of this film is very similar to that of the “Blind Spot.” It goes through the history of our oil consumption and why it is an “evil” resource that has abused when it should not have been touched in the first place. Not only does it cause pollution but it is a “magnet for war.” It also covers how oil is “cheap” energy and became widely used because I barrel of oil amounts to 25,000 hours of human energy. For this reason, oil is used in every facet of our lives.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The film draws out many sustainability problems concerning the government, the economy, technology, behavior/culture, and the environment. Oil accounts for a major portion of the world’s economy and therefore important to every nation’s government. The film calls it the “bloodstream of the economy” which is mainly because it is used in just about everything if not everything. A major problem is that an equivalent amount of oil costs less than a bottle of water so it is easy for people to abuse oil. Until the 1950s, the United States was the largest producer to oil, above Venezuela and Russia. Oil is also a “magnet for war.” It has started wars in many countries including Sudan. The war in Sudan was caused because the government in the north displaced people as a way to increase oil revenue. In World War II, the Russians were able to defeat the Germans mainly because they had access to their large supply of oil in Baku. Saddaam Hussein invaded Kuwait to get oil as well. The film claims that the Egyptians also invaded Israel to gain access to oil. The most recent example is the Iraq War which still goes on today. Though it is up for debate, the film takes the stance that “all evidence” points to the United States going into Iraq for oil. This is mainly because the soldiers secured oil wells and not weapons of mass destruction like they proposed. They got rid of Saddaam Hussein and still the United States armed forces did not pull out of the country. Instead, they stayed to convert the country to our style of government, making it easier for us to gain access to oil. Most of our oil currently comes from nations with corrupt governments. Because of this, oil has gone from “cheap” energy to “hard-to-get, expensive” energy since we now rely on unstable regimes to supply it. It is career suicide for politicians to mention the reality of the oil crisis because people to not want to re-elect officials that bring them bad news. Technology also poses a sustainability issue because it uses oil all the time and most times very inefficiently. Today, 70% of all refined oil is used for transportation and 98% of all transportation utilizes the energy produced from oil. In addition, it takes 27-54 barrels of oil to manufacture 1 car. Then, we can take into account that China, with the largest population in the world, has the highest rate of automobile purchases and low emission regulations. That is just asking to heavily pollute our air supply. After over a century of having automobiles, engineers and designers still have not come up with a sustainable/renewable fuel for them. “Hummers” are the ultimate American status symbol. As for behavior and culture, we use oil everyday on a constant basis and do not even stop to recognize it. As quoted from the film, “We use it for everything. People worship petroleum.” Because there is an insatiable demand for oil, the oil industry has gone from procuring 80 million barrels per day to 120 million barrels per day. We need 200 million barrels per day to be replenished to compensate for the existing barrels. Our dependency on oil is astonishing because until the 1970s, half of the world did not even use oil. Only the United States, Japan, the European Union and Canada were major consumers of oil. Now, almost every country uses oil in one way or another. Since developing countries want to emulate the American dream, many have increased their use of oil to mimic our lifestyles. India and China have both followed in our footsteps and are now becoming two of the largest consumers of oil. As stated in the annotation for the “Blind Spot,” oil is a major cause for water and air pollution, most times in the form of automobile emissions. During the “Green Era,” fertilizer began to be produced from petroleum to increase the production rate of crops and feed the growing population. However, petroleum has harmful chemical that are not healthy for people to ingest or for the soil to soak up. In addition, all the largest oil reserves have been discovered so there are really no other places that we can find to drill oil. We have passed our sustainable peak supply.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I was really concerned about the militarization of oil. It is scary to think that countries would start wars for access to oil. I would hope that we would attempt to find renewable energy sources instead of turning to violence. I was also intrigued by the old commercials promoting the use of oil. It was interesting to see how they portrayed oil almost as “man and woman’s more essential and desirable resource,” effectively masking all of its faults. I was also liked the way the film was structured. It was very organized in its argument and gave some historical background to our dependency on oil unlike many of the other films. I also like how it plainly stated that there is “no going back.” I think this is a very wise statement, because realistically, we cannot give up technology that we are used to having. We can only adapt and evolve to meet the needs of the future and hopefully a more sustainable one.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Although I enjoyed the film, I found it a little heavy handed. While I do agree with a majority of the information and views it presented, it seemed to have a little bit of a “conspiracy” vibe to me. It really cracked down on the Iraq War, and while I agree that oil had a role to play in it, I am reluctant to believe that is the only reason we went there. I also did not agree with some of the solutions it presented to solve this issue. For one, it recommended the conversion to hybrid cars when they are just as bad if not worse than traditional automobiles. They still strip the earth of its resources, just lithium as opposed to oil, and it takes more energy to manufacture hybrid vehicles (which uses oil).
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? I would like to seek out more information about the history of oil use and what exactly is peek oil and how it is determined. I would also like to learn more about alternative energies and which ones are truly feasible for future use.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? I think this film is best watched by college students because it brings up some very controversial subjects that only a more mature audience would be able to properly comprehend and discuss in depth. Professors could definitely set up debates surrounding the film. Some majors, like marketing, could analyze the approach of the film makers to discuss the pros and cons of its strategy or discuss the contrast between the commercial played in the film to advertising today. I do not think this movie would really compel people to take action. Although, it does provide some solutions, the tone of the film seemed more like a history lesson than a call for action. 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? It suggests a few points of intervention to solve this problem. The first was to replace the traditional automobile with hybrid ones, which is ridiculous. Second, it suggests hydrogen power although the film recognizes that this comes with some major challenges such as safety risks. It does suggest wind energy as well as solar energy although the film recognizes that at the current phase, many panels are need to effectively harness solar energy.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? The film actually went pretty in depth into the history of oil usage. However, it did not really delve into the environmental aspects of this sustainability issue. The film could have talked more about the harm that our oil consumption causes to the environment and our health.
1. Title, director and release year?
A Crude Awakening, Basil Gelpke and Ray McCormack, 2006
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of this film is very similar to that of the “Blind Spot.” It goes through the history of our oil consumption and why it is an “evil” resource that has abused when it should not have been touched in the first place. Not only does it cause pollution but it is a “magnet for war.” It also covers how oil is “cheap” energy and became widely used because I barrel of oil amounts to 25,000 hours of human energy. For this reason, oil is used in every facet of our lives.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film draws out many sustainability problems concerning the government, the economy, technology, behavior/culture, and the environment. Oil accounts for a major portion of the world’s economy and therefore important to every nation’s government. The film calls it the “bloodstream of the economy” which is mainly because it is used in just about everything if not everything. A major problem is that an equivalent amount of oil costs less than a bottle of water so it is easy for people to abuse oil. Until the 1950s, the United States was the largest producer to oil, above Venezuela and Russia. Oil is also a “magnet for war.” It has started wars in many countries including Sudan. The war in Sudan was caused because the government in the north displaced people as a way to increase oil revenue. In World War II, the Russians were able to defeat the Germans mainly because they had access to their large supply of oil in Baku. Saddaam Hussein invaded Kuwait to get oil as well. The film claims that the Egyptians also invaded Israel to gain access to oil. The most recent example is the Iraq War which still goes on today. Though it is up for debate, the film takes the stance that “all evidence” points to the United States going into Iraq for oil. This is mainly because the soldiers secured oil wells and not weapons of mass destruction like they proposed. They got rid of Saddaam Hussein and still the United States armed forces did not pull out of the country. Instead, they stayed to convert the country to our style of government, making it easier for us to gain access to oil. Most of our oil currently comes from nations with corrupt governments. Because of this, oil has gone from “cheap” energy to “hard-to-get, expensive” energy since we now rely on unstable regimes to supply it. It is career suicide for politicians to mention the reality of the oil crisis because people to not want to re-elect officials that bring them bad news.
Technology also poses a sustainability issue because it uses oil all the time and most times very inefficiently. Today, 70% of all refined oil is used for transportation and 98% of all transportation utilizes the energy produced from oil. In addition, it takes 27-54 barrels of oil to manufacture 1 car. Then, we can take into account that China, with the largest population in the world, has the highest rate of automobile purchases and low emission regulations. That is just asking to heavily pollute our air supply. After over a century of having automobiles, engineers and designers still have not come up with a sustainable/renewable fuel for them. “Hummers” are the ultimate American status symbol.
As for behavior and culture, we use oil everyday on a constant basis and do not even stop to recognize it. As quoted from the film, “We use it for everything. People worship petroleum.” Because there is an insatiable demand for oil, the oil industry has gone from procuring 80 million barrels per day to 120 million barrels per day. We need 200 million barrels per day to be replenished to compensate for the existing barrels. Our dependency on oil is astonishing because until the 1970s, half of the world did not even use oil. Only the United States, Japan, the European Union and Canada were major consumers of oil. Now, almost every country uses oil in one way or another. Since developing countries want to emulate the American dream, many have increased their use of oil to mimic our lifestyles. India and China have both followed in our footsteps and are now becoming two of the largest consumers of oil.
As stated in the annotation for the “Blind Spot,” oil is a major cause for water and air pollution, most times in the form of automobile emissions. During the “Green Era,” fertilizer began to be produced from petroleum to increase the production rate of crops and feed the growing population. However, petroleum has harmful chemical that are not healthy for people to ingest or for the soil to soak up. In addition, all the largest oil reserves have been discovered so there are really no other places that we can find to drill oil. We have passed our sustainable peak supply.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I was really concerned about the militarization of oil. It is scary to think that countries would start wars for access to oil. I would hope that we would attempt to find renewable energy sources instead of turning to violence. I was also intrigued by the old commercials promoting the use of oil. It was interesting to see how they portrayed oil almost as “man and woman’s more essential and desirable resource,” effectively masking all of its faults. I was also liked the way the film was structured. It was very organized in its argument and gave some historical background to our dependency on oil unlike many of the other films. I also like how it plainly stated that there is “no going back.” I think this is a very wise statement, because realistically, we cannot give up technology that we are used to having. We can only adapt and evolve to meet the needs of the future and hopefully a more sustainable one.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Although I enjoyed the film, I found it a little heavy handed. While I do agree with a majority of the information and views it presented, it seemed to have a little bit of a “conspiracy” vibe to me. It really cracked down on the Iraq War, and while I agree that oil had a role to play in it, I am reluctant to believe that is the only reason we went there. I also did not agree with some of the solutions it presented to solve this issue. For one, it recommended the conversion to hybrid cars when they are just as bad if not worse than traditional automobiles. They still strip the earth of its resources, just lithium as opposed to oil, and it takes more energy to manufacture hybrid vehicles (which uses oil).
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I would like to seek out more information about the history of oil use and what exactly is peek oil and how it is determined. I would also like to learn more about alternative energies and which ones are truly feasible for future use.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think this film is best watched by college students because it brings up some very controversial subjects that only a more mature audience would be able to properly comprehend and discuss in depth. Professors could definitely set up debates surrounding the film. Some majors, like marketing, could analyze the approach of the film makers to discuss the pros and cons of its strategy or discuss the contrast between the commercial played in the film to advertising today. I do not think this movie would really compel people to take action. Although, it does provide some solutions, the tone of the film seemed more like a history lesson than a call for action.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
It suggests a few points of intervention to solve this problem. The first was to replace the traditional automobile with hybrid ones, which is ridiculous. Second, it suggests hydrogen power although the film recognizes that this comes with some major challenges such as safety risks. It does suggest wind energy as well as solar energy although the film recognizes that at the current phase, many panels are need to effectively harness solar energy.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film actually went pretty in depth into the history of oil usage. However, it did not really delve into the environmental aspects of this sustainability issue. The film could have talked more about the harm that our oil consumption causes to the environment and our health.